Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID 507
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02767 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02769 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02772 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02781 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GROUPON, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID 508
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02782 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02783 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02823 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02824 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BARNES & NOBLE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID 509
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02825 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02826 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02827 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02828 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 4 of 10 PageID 510
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02829 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02830 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02831 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02833 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID 511
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`HOLDINGS LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02834 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02866 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION (INCLUDING MEMORANDUM)
`FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`(WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID 512
`
`
`
`
`The parties jointly move this Court to enter the accompanying proposed protective order
`
`in the above-captioned case. Although these matters are currently stayed, there are nine pending
`
`petitions for inter partes review involving two of the asserted patents: U.S. Patents 6,771,290
`
`(“the ‘290 Patent”) and 6,628,314 (“the ‘314 Patent”). The agreed-to protective order (emailed
`
`to the Court’s CM/ECF address simultaneous with this filing) implements, among other
`
`provisions, a prosecution bar that will govern the parties if they proceed through the inter partes
`
`review proceedings.
`
`As detailed more fully in the motions to stay filed by numerous Defendants1 last year and
`
`ultimately granted by this Court, Google, along with several other defendants in the related
`
`cases, filed petitions for inter partes review of the ‘290 and ‘314 Patents before the PTO Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking to invalidate all the claims of the ‘290 and ‘314
`
`Patents asserted in this cases. Litigation counsel for B.E. has entered appearances in each of
`
`those proceedings. See Ex. A. Prior to the stay, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.4, the majority
`
`of Defendants produced confidential and highly confidential materials to B.E. These materials
`
`include product specifications, design documents, and other references describing the accused
`
`
`1 The defendants are those defendants in the following cases, hereinafter “Defendants:” B.E.
`Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital Servs., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02767; B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`Facebook, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02769; B.E. Technology, LLC v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 2:12- cv-
`02772; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02782; B.E. Technology,
`LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02783; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No.
`2:12-cv-02823; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No. 2:12-
`cv-02824; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02825; B.E.
`Technology, LLC v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02826; B.E. Technology, LLC
`v. Sony Mobile Commcn’s (USA) Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02827; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Elecs.
`Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02828; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02829; B.E.
`Technology, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02830; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No.
`2:12-cv-02831; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Spark Networks, Inc., No 2:12-cv-02832 (dismissed);
`B.E. Technology, LLC v. People Media, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02833; B.E. Technology, LLC v.
`Match.com LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02834; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Motorola Mobility Holdings,
`LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02866.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 7 of 10 PageID 513
`
`
`products and functionalities. Accordingly, counsel with access to Defendants’ highly
`
`confidential materials may participate in the inter partes review proceedings.
`
`Using the Court’s model protective order set forth in the Local Patent Rules, the parties
`
`have negotiated a protective order that has been agreed to by all the Defendants and B.E. The
`
`Defendants require some additional protections and looked to the model protective order of the
`
`Northern District of California for guidance. The parties have agreed to additional provisions,
`
`including a prosecution bar that addresses the issue of who may participate in claim drafting and
`
`amending activities in prosecution activities, including the possible inter partes review
`
`proceedings, 2 as well as procedures that govern the production, review and use of source code. 3
`
`The provisions agreed upon by the parties are largely based upon the Northern District of
`
`California Model Protective Order and are necessary to protect the Defendants’ highly
`
`confidential material during the pendency of any inter partes review and these cases, should the
`
`cases resume after such proceedings. The parties have worked diligently to negotiate and agree
`
`to these provisions as well as other protections deemed necessary by the inclusion of competitor
`
`2 When necessary, courts include prosecution bars in protective orders because “there may be
`circumstances in which the most rigorous efforts of the recipient of [sensitive] information to
`preserve confidentiality in compliance . . . with a protective order may not prevent inadvertent
`compromise.” In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As the
`Federal Circuit recognized in In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, “it is very difficult for the
`human mind to compartmentalize and selectively suppress information once learned, no matter
`how well-intentioned the effort may be to do so.” Id. Accordingly, prosecution bars are seen as
`a less drastic alternative to the disqualification of counsel, and courts consistently include them
`in protective orders governing patent cases. See, e.g., Applied Signal Technology, Inc. v.
`Emerging Mkts. Commc’ns, Inc., No. 09-2180 (SBA/DMR), 2011 WL 197811, *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan
`20, 2011); see also Bear Creek Technologies Inc. v. Verizon Services Corp., No. 12-cv-600
`(GMS), 2012 WL 319762 (D.Del. July 25, 2012); Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case
`No.: 5:11-cv-2168 EJD (PSG) (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012); Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corp.,
`Nos. C 11–01548 CW (LB), C 10–04947 CW (LB) C 11–01398 CW (LB), C 11–02284 CW
`(LB), 2011 WL 6000759, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011); Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. AT&T
`Mobility LLC, 881 F.Supp.2d 254, 257 (D. Puerto Rico, July 30, 2012).
`3 See Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (noting that
`Google’s source code is a “vital,” “valuable,” and “vulnerable…asset”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID 514
`
`
`defendants and the particular posture of these cases. The parties believe that the agreed-to
`
`protective order establishes a fair and secure process for the production, review and use of
`
`confidential, highly confidential, and highly confidential source code materials in these cases.
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court is empowered to issue protective
`
`orders “for good cause shown” to prevent “undue burden or expense” by ordering, inter alia,
`
`“that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not
`
`be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7). For the
`
`foregoing reasons, the parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and
`
`enter their proposed protective order.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Richard M. Carter (per Consent MVB)
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam J. Eckstein (TN B.P.R. #27200)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON,
`P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`AEckstein@martintate.com
`
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 15945)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`dweinberg@ftklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for B. E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Twitter, Inc.
`
`61134677.1 
`3/5/2014 9:54 am 
`
`Of counsel:
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID 515
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST, LLP
`J. David Hadden
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren E. Donnelly
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`Leslie Kramer
`lkramer@fenwick.com
`Melissa H. Keyes
`mkeyes@fenwick.com
`Clifford C. Webb
`cwebb@fenwick.com
`Justin G. Hulse
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`650.988.8500
`
`Attorneys for Twitter, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 03/05/14 Page 10 of 10 PageID 516
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`
`The foregoing motion is filed jointly by all parties as a result of successful pre-filing
`consultation in compliance with the Court’s Local Rule 7.
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The foregoing motion is being filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, thereby
`automatically effecting service on all counsel who have appeared in the action.
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5